ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2022
Echo planar imaging-induced errors in intracardiac 4D flow MRI quantification.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Physiologic Left Ventricle Flow Phantom for 4D Flow MRI Applications and CFD Verification.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Comparison of Echo-Planar Imaging and Compressed Sensing in the Estimation of Flow Metrics from Aortic 4D Flow MR Imaging: A Healthy Volunteer Study.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025Article
- Fully Automated Valve Segmentation for Blood Flow Assessment From 4D Flow MRI Including Automated Cardiac Valve Tracking and Transvalvular Velocity Mapping.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Article
- Age- and sex-specific reference values of biventricular flow components and kinetic energy by 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance in healthy subjects.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2023Observational
- 4D Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance consensus statement: 2023 update.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2023Review
- Evaluation of left ventricular blood flow kinetic energy in patients with hypertension by four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: a preliminary study.European radiology · 2023Article
- Rationale and clinical applications of 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance in assessment of valvular heart disease: a comprehensive review.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2022Review
- Echo planar imaging-induced errors in intracardiac 4D flow MRI quantification.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Article
- Why 4D Flow MRI? Real Advantages.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess errors associated with EPI-accelerated intracardiac 4D flow MRI (4DEPI) with EPI factor 5, compared with non-EPI gradient echo (4DGRE).
methodsThree 3T MRI experiments were performed comparing 4DEPI to 4DGRE: steady flow through straight tubes, pulsatile flow in a left-ventricle phantom, and intracardiac flow in 10 healthy volunteers. For each experiment, 4DEPI was repeated with readout and blip phase-encoding gradient in different orientations, parallel or perpendicular to the flow direction. In vitro flow rates were compared with timed volumetric collection. In the left-ventricle phantom and in vivo, voxel-based speed and spatio-temporal median speed were compared between sequences, as well as mitral and aortic transvalvular net forward volume.
resultsIn steady-flow phantoms, the flow rate error was largest (12%) for high velocity (>2 m/s) with 4DEPI readout gradient parallel to the flow. Voxel-based speed and median speed in the left-ventricle phantom were ≤5.5% different between sequences. In vivo, mean net forward volume inconsistency was largest (6.4 ± 8.5%) for 4DEPI with nonblip phase-encoding gradient parallel to the main flow. The difference in median speed for 4DEPI versus 4DGRE was largest (9%) when the 4DEPI readout gradient was parallel to the flow.
conclusionsVelocity and flow rate are inaccurate for 4DEPI with EPI factor 5 when flow is parallel to the readout or blip phase-encoding gradient. However, mean differences in flow rate, voxel-based speed, and spatio-temporal median speed were acceptable (≤10%) when comparing 4DEPI to 4DGRE for intracardiac flow in healthy volunteers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.